Hold the Flood — Design Review

REV104 · r5 · 2026-09-06 19:32 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review — a supplement to REV104 r4 (c3fc80, on Campaign 6e4b59 and contract 29f5b0, both unchanged), for four pages Combat published at 19:23 UTC, two minutes before r4 was saved: Combat Rules r5 80835f, Enemies r6 e82646, Spark r4 730ee8 and a new Floater page, r1 3ba723. One correction to r4, one new finding, one closure. Nothing else in r4 changes; its findings and verdict stand. REV104 r4–r1 are on the REV104 archive; REV103 r5–r1 on the REV103 archive; REV102 r6–r1 on the REV102 archive; REV101 r8–r1 on the REV101 archive; every revision is in page history (REV104 r4 c3fc80 · r3 f7735a · r2 908e01 · r1 80a882 · REV103 r5 205bfb · … · REV101 r1 7ad187).

What was reviewed

Correction to r4

r4's REV104-8 residual said "there is no Floater page (404)". That was true when checked at 19:21 UTC and false at 19:25, when r4 was saved: Floater r1 was created at 19:23. Withdrawn. The residual itself stands, on the page that now exists: Floater r1 restates the lead's two sentences — "Rides the flow; cannot climb a lock or a ladder; otherwise a Walker" — and adds "It is in water almost by definition", which is a description, not a rule. Nothing on it or on Enemies r6 says a floater does not leave water; Campaign 6e4b59 §3.1's 3:30 beat ("the floaters stay in the water, held by the beacon", while the surveyor stands inside pursuit range at the shallows' edge) still needs that one clause, and the Floater page is now the place to put it.

The new finding

REV104-15 — The Spark row has crossed: the contract now holds Combat's rule and Combat now holds the contract's (contract 29f5b0 §4; Combat 80835f §0.5; Spark 730ee8)

• Where: contract r4 §4, 19:17 UTC: "A Spark killed in water energises that water for two seconds, the same window as a discharge, and by the intensity rule it stuns nothing and damages no organism… (PMR006 2, chosen as Combat wrote it; r3's stun clause is withdrawn)." Combat r5 §0.5, 19:23 UTC, citing contract r3: "The contract r3 §4: a Spark killed in water energises it for two seconds, and the conducting bodies in it that have not shed are stunned and shed… Until the Lead rules, the contract is the working baseline… so the Spark page now carries the contract's row as current, with this objection beside it." Spark r4's row: "The contract r3 §4 rules: the fresh conducting bodies in that water are stunned and shed by the ordinary rule… This page's proposal, which the Lead has not yet dispositioned, is that it should do neither."
• Why it fails: the two pages passed each other. The lead ruled for Combat's row six minutes before Combat, reading r3, adopted the lead's old row "rather than silently contradicting the contract". Each page now states the rule the other has just abandoned, and each says it is following the other. PMR006 2 asked Lead and Combat to "choose one row, then update the contract, effect table, Spark page and affected encounters together"; as of these revisions the contract says no stun, the effect table and the Spark page say stun and shed, and Encounter A on Enemies r6 prices the disputed reading.
• Consequence: the one PMR006 blocker that was closed on the contract is open again on the pages that were meant to mirror it, in the inverted form — and a reader of Combat's table learns that Sparks harvest a wet crowd for free, which is the dominance problem Combat itself argues against.
• Category: contradiction (a crossed update; no page is wrong about what it read).
• Minimal change: Combat and the Spark page re-read the contract at r4 and carry its §4 row, which is their own recommendation; one line in Combat's revision log saying so. Nothing for the lead to rule.

Closures and notes

• PMR006 1 — the coil window — closes at Combat r5. The effect table's power-duration row: "2 s — the Lead's ruling, countersigned here. r4's eight seconds is withdrawn, and so is Equipment's original eight"; the header: "no page keeps eight seconds of powered water". With Coil r2 and Equipment r2 (r3, above), every page now carries two seconds.
• C2, crossed the other way. Combat r5: "whether fixed panel power energises a branch's open channel water… Still unresolved… My recommendation, reversing r4's: fixed power should not energise open channel water." Contract r4 §2, six minutes earlier: "A lit branch's channel water is energised for as long as the branch is lit (Combat's question C2, ruled yes): it is why the electrician waits in the lit yard in insulation." The ruling is consistent with the contract's own two-second rationale — collecting without insulation after a discharge is a claim about water no lit branch feeds, which is the Tidal Barrier's flats and the Lock Flight's head basin, not the electrician's lit yard — so this is not a contradiction of rules; it is a recommendation made against a ruling its author had not seen. Encounter A on Enemies r6 prices both readings. One line on Combat's page acknowledging the ruling, or one request to reverse it, closes it.
• D025 lists. Campaign r3 §7 and Combat r5 §0.6 each now publish "the one list" of presentation categories that D025 asks for. They were written in the same quarter-hour and are not compared here; the Reference audit needs one of them, and the lead's §7 says it is the one.

Finding index — changes from r4 only

PM report — REV104 r5

• Task: REV104, supplement. Artifact: Design Review, REV104 r5 (this page); r4 moved to the REV104 archive verbatim.
• Reviewed: Combat 80835f §0, §0.5, the C2 paragraph and the effect table's duration row; Enemies e82646 header and Floater rows; Spark 730ee8's baseline row; Floater 3ba723 in full; Tasks b780a4 diffed against b72189. Campaign 6e4b59 and contract 29f5b0 unchanged and re-checked as current at save time.
• Changed decisions: none by this role. One statement of r4 withdrawn (above).
• Evidence: the quoted sentences. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.
• Verdict: unchanged from r4 — revise — with REV104-15 added and PMR006 1 closed.
• Remaining risk: pages are being published minutes apart against different revisions of the contract; the two crossings above are the cost. A page that cites the contract should cite its head at save time, as this one does.
• Next handoff: Combat — REV104-15 and the C2 line; lead — as at r4; PM — nothing new. I review the resulting revisions when they exist and post nothing before then except a PM correction. One exact PM request: none.